Ilford Pan 400 Datasheet

[charlotteRF]

The only datasheet online is quite old, and there are still claims at times that it is just repackaged Kentmere, it clearly isn't.
In case anyone needs it, here is the most recent one, requested from Ilford:

I've just picked up a few rolls myself from China, looking at results online, it seems to have more contrast out of the box than Kentmere 400.

 

[Disconnekt]

I remember reading somewhere that the Ilford Pan 100 & 400 films where mostly aimed at the asian market & the Kentmere filmswere aimed for the US/EU/UK markets (dont remember the exact side)

The 2002 datasheet even says that the "Ilford Pan" films were "not generally distributed/sold worldwide, and made for select markets. I uploaded the 2002 datasheet incase you wanted it.

 

[loccdor]

I was reading an email response from Ilford once about those films. Said something to the effect of being capable of good results but the main difference to their other films was containing less silver.

 

[Lachlan Young]

looking at results online, it seems to have more contrast out of the box than Kentmere 400

This means nothing other than people's exposure/ processing/ post-processing choices.

Kentmere 100 and Pan 100 are exactly the same thing (have seen edge signed Pan 100 in a K100 canister).

 

[miha]

Kentmere 100 and Pan 100 are exactly the same thing (have seen edge signed Pan 100 in a K100 canister).

Me too:

 

[Film-Niko]

That's very interesting. Thanks for posting. I've never seen an Ilford Pan marking in a Kentmere film.

But to exclude an exception - for example a temporarily production hiccup that leads to using a Pan batch for a Kentmere run - some direct side-by-side tests under completely identical conditions are the best solution.

 

[Lachlan Young]

That's very interesting. Thanks for posting. I've never seen an Ilford Pan marking in a Kentmere film.

But to exclude an exception - for example a temporarily production hiccup that leads to using a Pan batch for a Kentmere run - some direct side-by-side tests under completely identical conditions are the best solution.

Given that there was over a year between the linked example and the rolls I encountered, I don't think there's any accidents.

 

[Film-Niko]

Given that there was over a year between the linked example and the rolls I encountered, I don't think there's any accidents.

Hm, a year is not so much in the distribution chain.
But my suggestion was just to be really 100% sure. It is just my personal general "thinking pattern" from an engineering point of view .

 

[miha]

Time for theories: Is Ilford cheating us, or is it the poster on Reddit making things up?

 

[Michael Howard]

I have a 100' spool of Kentmere 100 on the way from Freestyle, I'll take a look at it. My guess is it will say Kentmere 100 on it. Reddit is almost as believable as...well, I won't go there...rules n sech.

 

[Arcadia4]

Pan 100 and 400 were fp4/hp5 made to a lower quality standard, as previously confirmed by harman technical service (lowest quality ilford film they make) and had similar process times. Whilst It may be theyve now been merged with the kentmere/ apx/ rpx / seagull line, the posted datasheet still gives similar idll times to hp5 and somewhat different to k400.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Hm, a year is not so much in the distribution chain.
But my suggestion was just to be really 100% sure. It is just my personal general "thinking pattern" from an engineering point of view .

Given the date stamps, the rolls I had my hands on had left Harman only a couple of weeks earlier - the distribution chain for Ilford/ Kentmere here is generally pretty short.

That being said, I'm pretty convinced that K400 and Pan 400 were different in the past.

 

[MattKing]

It's always possible that the film is Pan 400, and the error was in the edge printing.

 

[Don_ih]

The dev times for Ilford pan 100 and Kentmere 100 don't match on their data sheets (the one posted above by @charlotteRF and the other from Ilford's site). They don't match for the 400 speed, either.

They're different films.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's always possible that the film is Pan 400, and the error was in the edge printing.

@Harman Tech Service would probably be able to give a more detailed answer, but if Ilford Pan 100 and Kentmere Pan 100 are now the same film (at which point, a 2002 data sheet is essentially irrelevant), it may be as simple as Ilford controlling costs by not remaking the edge signing template until the old one has worn out. I'd add that the Pan 100 roll seemed sensitometrically inline with K100's recommendations density-wise. What also struck me, relative to K400 was that K100 seemed somewhat less of a qualitative jump that you would expect going from 400 to 100 within the same film series, which rather suggests that K400 was remade for the Kentmere line and K100 repurposed.

 

[MattKing]

Actually, I was thinking more of simple human error - "oops, we forgot to change the edge signing template when we put the Pan 400 into the machine."

 

[Lachlan Young]

Actually, I was thinking more of simple human error - "oops, we forgot to change the edge signing template when we put the Pan 400 into the machine."

Given that it was with films that were over 18 months apart in purchase and that the film I bought had a best before that indicated it was essentially factory fresh, I doubt it.

 

[miha]

@Harman Tech Service What also struck me, relative to K400 was that K100 seemed somewhat less of a qualitative jump that you would expect going from 400 to 100 within the same film series, which rather suggests that K400 was remade for the Kentmere line and K100 repurposed.

Do I understand correctly that, in your experience, the Ilford Pan films are inferior to Kentmere films?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Do I understand correctly that, in your experience, the Ilford Pan films are inferior to Kentmere films?

No, just that there's less of a qualitative difference between K100 and K400 than you would normally expect between 100 & 400 speed materials of a given series - i.e. K100 seems relatively more grainy and with different sharpness than you would expect vs K400. Which makes me think that K100 is a somewhat older emulsion set and/ or that K400 was either more heavily revised or all new.

 

[miha]

No, just that there's less of a qualitative difference between K100 and K400 than you would normally expect between 100 & 400 speed materials of a given series - i.e. K100 seems relatively more grainy and with different sharpness than you would expect vs K400. Which makes me think that K100 is a somewhat older emulsion set and/ or that K400 was either more heavily revised or all new.

In my experience, the difference between K100 and K400 is comparable to FP4 and HP5. However, I need to say that my experience is based on Rollei RPX 100 and AgfaPhoto 400, which are supposed to be relabeled as K100 and K400.